NANDLAL SAKHARAM Vs. BABU BHIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals have been clubbed together for the purposes of disposal as the common question of law is involved in all these appeals. Not only that, but the facts available in these three appeals are akin to each other except the few dates which will be separately stated hereinafter. However, due to the said difference, the result of appeals will not be affected and therefore, they are being decided together by a common judgment.

(2.) APPEAL No. 17 of 82 and Appeal No. 203 of 82, so far as the facts are concerned, are same, except the change in the names of parties. The facts in these appeals are ---The suit properties involved in these suits are the properties of Jahagirdar, viz. Nurul Jiyauddin s/o Nurul Attkiya. The said Jahagirdar had executed lease of the suit land in favour of three persons, viz. Sakharam, Ganeshlal and Motilal permanently under the registered deed of lease dated 28th June 1945. The defendants were recorded annual tenants of the suit land in the Records of Right. Therefore, Sakharam and others including Jahagirdar served a notice to quit under section 74 (2) of the Berar Land Revenue Code and then filed a suit Bearing No. 327-A of 1946 against the defendants for possession of the suit land. This suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs father and others. Plaintiffs father and others obtained possession of the suit land through Court on 14th September 1950. As the plaintiffs father and other co-lessees were specified tenants in lawful possession of the suit, the Deputy Commissioner of Buldana by his order dated 30th June, 1955 passed in Revenue Case No. 288/42-A/1951-52 declared plaintiffs father and other co-lessees as occupants of the suit land as per Exhibit 30 under the provisions of the M. P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights, Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands Act, 1950 (for short, the Act of 1950) on payment of requisite amount of land revenue. The said order conferring occupancy rights on plaintiffs father and other co-lessees was final and binding on defendants. Afterwards on 20th December 1954 a partition took place between plaintiffs father and other co-lessees in which the suit land was allotted to the share of plaintiffs father. Thus, the defendants had no right whatsoever in the suit land. Even then the defendants denied the rights of the plaintiff and obstructed in possession of plaintiff over suit land. Thus, the plaintiff made application before the Tahsildar, but the Tahsildar did not decide the rights and hence the suit was filed for possession. Thus the facts in both the appeals are one and the same except the revenue case number which is Revenue Case No. 2/52 (a) of 1954-55 in Appeal No. 203 of 1982.

(3.) SO far as Second Appeal No. 202 of 82 is concerned, the history of facts stated above is same, except number of suit filed in 1946 which is 322-A of 1946 and the date of possession obtained by the plaintiff on the basis of the decree in the said suit, which is 9th August 1950. The number of revenue case giving grant of suit land to the plaintiff is 2/52 (a) of 1954-55 in the said appeal.